Why does mcps do a crappy job with magnet/enriched opportunities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, and this is why tracking could help.

At least the teacher can stick with one lesson!

Tracking just creates levels in a rigid system and doesn’t necessarily promote true differentiation.

NP. Is anyone willing to explain the difference between tracking and differentiation? I guess I don’t understand the terminology. I assumed that being on different “tracks” meant having varying levels of instruction and standards, which is what I thought differentiation is.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/ability-grouping-tracking-and-how-schools-work/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, and this is why tracking could help.

At least the teacher can stick with one lesson!

Tracking just creates levels in a rigid system and doesn’t necessarily promote true differentiation.

NP. Is anyone willing to explain the difference between tracking and differentiation? I guess I don’t understand the terminology. I assumed that being on different “tracks” meant having varying levels of instruction and standards, which is what I thought differentiation is.

Tracking is grouping kids by ability level in separate classes which harms lower performers

Differentiation is having all the kids in the same classes and having different expectations. Example, have kids do a book report and expect kids to go in depth at different levels or have a nature unit and require some kids to collect 10 leaf types vs 20 etc.

Again you are talking about elementary school and middle school here which again news flash doesn't matter long term. In high school you have tracking again.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the article and explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, and this is why tracking could help.

At least the teacher can stick with one lesson!

Tracking just creates levels in a rigid system and doesn’t necessarily promote true differentiation.

NP. Is anyone willing to explain the difference between tracking and differentiation? I guess I don’t understand the terminology. I assumed that being on different “tracks” meant having varying levels of instruction and standards, which is what I thought differentiation is.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/ability-grouping-tracking-and-how-schools-work/

Be careful about studies like the one quoted here - there are lots of software companies subsidizing studies to support the use of their wares. They are selling methods of grouping students, so they find the benefit.

Tracking is a form of differentiation. Differentiation is meeting students at their individual ability level and supporting their learning by acknowledging different abilities, interests, skills and just generally the unique human part of all of us.

Tracking attempts to do this by grouping students into general levels of ability by classroom. It has fallen out of favor for younger students because it can “trap” a student in a level that they may grow out of. It seems suitable for high school. Ability grouping is basically tracking within one classroom, and is generally more accepted in elementary schools because it is easier for a teacher to move students fluidly from group to group if their skills change, and there are more opportunities for children of all levels to work together.

However, as ability grouping is done in MCPS, it is a bandaid and does not really provide true differentiation, because curriculum 2.0 is heavily reliant on almost insanely rigid and boring worksheets, many of which are an almost exact replica of the day’s previous lesson. So despite having children in ability groups, the kids are doing largely similar worksheets which don’t give any room for individual outcomes and are mainly skills drills. Teachers do not have time to hold six groups per class, so they tend to cluster the children into larger ability groups than would be ideal and they also tend to meet much less often with the children in the highest ability groups. Ability groups tend to be more successful for ELA than math because reading and writing and discussion naturally allow for more individual responses. But better constructed ELA assignments that focus more on allowing for inherent differentiation within the assignment for every child and not just the groups would also allow for a much more interesting and engaging classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that differentiation is what we need to argue for.

Meet each group of kids at their level instead of mixing them all up together. It helps nobody. And the teachers are left feeling like they can’t serve any of the students well.

What's funny is our ES does a great job providing differentiated learning beginning in grade 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, and this is why tracking could help.

At least the teacher can stick with one lesson!

Tracking just creates levels in a rigid system and doesn’t necessarily promote true differentiation.

NP. Is anyone willing to explain the difference between tracking and differentiation? I guess I don’t understand the terminology. I assumed that being on different “tracks” meant having varying levels of instruction and standards, which is what I thought differentiation is.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/ability-grouping-tracking-and-how-schools-work/

Be careful about studies like the one quoted here - there are lots of software companies subsidizing studies to support the use of their wares. They are selling methods of grouping students, so they find the benefit.

Tracking is a form of differentiation. Differentiation is meeting students at their individual ability level and supporting their learning by acknowledging different abilities, interests, skills and just generally the unique human part of all of us.

Tracking attempts to do this by grouping students into general levels of ability by classroom. It has fallen out of favor for younger students because it can “trap” a student in a level that they may grow out of. It seems suitable for high school. Ability grouping is basically tracking within one classroom, and is generally more accepted in elementary schools because it is easier for a teacher to move students fluidly from group to group if their skills change, and there are more opportunities for children of all levels to work together.

However, as ability grouping is done in MCPS, it is a bandaid and does not really provide true differentiation, because curriculum 2.0 is heavily reliant on almost insanely rigid and boring worksheets, many of which are an almost exact replica of the day’s previous lesson. So despite having children in ability groups, the kids are doing largely similar worksheets which don’t give any room for individual outcomes and are mainly skills drills. Teachers do not have time to hold six groups per class, so they tend to cluster the children into larger ability groups than would be ideal and they also tend to meet much less often with the children in the highest ability groups. Ability groups tend to be more successful for ELA than math because reading and writing and discussion naturally allow for more individual responses. But better constructed ELA assignments that focus more on allowing for inherent differentiation within the assignment for every child and not just the groups would also allow for a much more interesting and engaging classroom.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that differentiation is what we need to argue for.

Meet each group of kids at their level instead of mixing them all up together. It helps nobody. And the teachers are left feeling like they can’t serve any of the students well.

What's funny is our ES does a great job providing differentiated learning beginning in grade 1.

At ours, they provide real differentiation too, but it's mainly for ELA and Math. They do a decent job in spite of C2.0 limitations, but it can be challenging. As a PP posted, it can also trap a student at a level they've outgrown. This has happened but they seem to figure it out within a couple months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that differentiation is what we need to argue for.

Meet each group of kids at their level instead of mixing them all up together. It helps nobody. And the teachers are left feeling like they can’t serve any of the students well.

What's funny is our ES does a great job providing differentiated learning beginning in grade 1.

At ours, they provide real differentiation too, but it's mainly for ELA and Math. They do a decent job in spite of C2.0 limitations, but it can be challenging. As a PP posted, it can also trap a student at a level they've outgrown. This has happened but they seem to figure it out within a couple months.

Differentiation is common at the desegregated schools, but many posters on this board only know about W feeders where there's a fairly large homogenous cohort. Another great thing about these schools is they often have smaller class sizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that differentiation is what we need to argue for.

Meet each group of kids at their level instead of mixing them all up together. It helps nobody. And the teachers are left feeling like they can’t serve any of the students well.

What's funny is our ES does a great job providing differentiated learning beginning in grade 1.

At ours, they provide real differentiation too, but it's mainly for ELA and Math. They do a decent job in spite of C2.0 limitations, but it can be challenging. As a PP posted, it can also trap a student at a level they've outgrown. This has happened but they seem to figure it out within a couple months.

Differentiation is common at the desegregated schools, but many posters on this board only know about W feeders where there's a fairly large homogenous cohort. Another great thing about these schools is they often have smaller class sizes.

We are at a Silver Spring Focus school and have not had much differentiation. Unless you mean that there are separate reading groups? My kid in a higher reading group doesn’t get much direct instruction from the teacher. Sometimes their reading group doesn’t even have time to meet because the teacher is working with the kids who need to catch up.

Also, the smaller class sizes are more of an advantage for K-2. Not so much after that. My 4th grader has 26 kids in her class. Doubt that is much smaller than other schools.